This document summarizes concerns about a proposed international convention on geospatial data and information. It notes that the convention takes a "top-down" legal approach that could be difficult to integrate into existing laws and regulations. Additionally, the convention has an overly broad definition of geospatial data that would be unworkable and require significant changes to existing policies. The document advocates for a "bottom-up" stakeholder-driven approach to develop best practices that maximize benefits and minimize risks within individual nations' legal systems and cultures.

1. Kevin Pomfret
August 4, 2015

2.  Proposed Convention identifies many of the
issues that have been previously raised at
UN-GGIM, including:
◦ Privacy
◦ Data quality
◦ Intellectual Property Rights
◦ Provenance
◦ Use as Evidence
◦ National Security

3.  Geospatial community has raised concerns:
◦ Had several meetings with IBA representatives
◦ This is a “Top Down” approach;
◦ Lawyers/Regulators perspective – try to fix with new
laws and regulations
◦ Difficult to integrate proposal into existing laws and
regulations

4.  Overly Broad:
◦ “Geoinformation means information, including the
data on which it is based, captured from light, heat,
ultraviolet, sonar or radar sources by equipment in
space, in the air, on or under the ground or the sea,
including ice cover, regarding activity within the
geosphere irrespective of purpose. It shall include
in particular georeferencing of phenomena within
the geosphere as well as spatial metadata,
geomagnetic sensing data, all forms of imagery,
including photography and data derived from
precipitation samples” (Art. 2)

5.  Broad definition would be unworkable from
practical standpoint:
◦ Obligation to notify state if it has geoinformation
that can be used to avert harm or avert natural or
man-made. (Art. 6)
◦ Obligation to make all geoinformation available to
sensed state on fair and reasonable terms. (Art 6)

6.  Fails to appreciate complex nature geospatial
ecosystem:
◦ Custody Record would require:
 All persons who had custody - Including government
agencies other than geoinformation “generated”
exclusively for “national security purposes.
 Provide details of each transfer of geoinformation . .
 . . . for each stage of processing.
 Include notes on models and standards used or
interface requirements observed. (Art. 3)

7.  Would require significant changes in existing
laws and policies:
◦ Create copyright and data protection rights in
geoinformation (Art. 4);
◦ Grant individuals right to have geoinformation
“depersonalized (Art. 6)”
 Supersede existing policy/regulatory bodies:
◦ Create a “Consultative Committee” to establish
“technical and operating standards” (Art. 8)
◦ Create rules on use of geoinformation as evidence.
(Art. 9)

8.  Likely to create a geodivide
◦ Many member nations will ignore, a few will adopt as is:
 Impact for geospatial community where adopted:
◦ Increased regulation;
◦ More expensive to collect and use geoinformation;
◦ Increased liability risk for geoinformation
providers/users:
 Regulators
 Lawsuits
 Impact where not adopted
◦ Will be harder to obtain global datasets to address
critical transnational issues

9. 9
 “Bottoms-up” approach
 Use GGIM regional forums to bring together
relevant stakeholders:
◦ Geospatial community learns what impact
laws/policies/regulations are having on geoinformation
management within their nation.
◦ Raise awareness of full value of geoinformation in
society and economy.
◦ Identify challenges that are unique to region/country.
 Goal:
◦ A legal and regulatory framework that supports geospatial
information management within a member nation.
 Maximizes benefits and minimizes risks

10.  Stakeholders conduct a comprehensive review of
laws and regulations:
 Technology platforms
 Mapping, remote sensing, geodesy, cartography, land
management
 Drones, satellites, ground-based sensors,
 Smart cities, intelligent transportation systems, IoT
 Legal disciplines
 Intellectual property rights
 Privacy,
 National security
 Liability
 Open Data
1
0

11.  Proposed Outcomes
 Identify gaps between the existing legal and regulatory
environment and best practices from around the world.
 Specific laws and policies to be updated/revised (and if
necessary created);
 Cultural issues impacting geospatial information management
at the national level; and
 Capacity-building
 Any capacity needs from a legal and regulatory standpoint (e.g.
training of lawyers).
 Each member nation uses findings to implement according
to own cultural standard, economic imperatives and legal
system.
1
1

12.  Geospatial community can become a leader in
the Big Data revolution
◦ Geoinformation was Big Data before Big Data was “cool”
 What actions can geospatial community take:
◦ Educate – geospatial community on legal developments
◦ Engage – lawyers and policymakers on value of geo
◦ Enlist – industry, research communities for support
 But needs to proactively address now, otherwise:
◦ Other communities will drive Big Data agenda; and
 Defining technology, legal and business drivers
◦ Full potential of geoinformation will not be realized

13.  If decide to pursue alternate approach, key
questions remain, including:
◦ Is there enough understanding of these issues
within geospatial community?
◦ Are these issues important enough for a more
informed dialogue?
◦ Should the UN-GGIM convene a forum on these
issues?